In my post on Root Causes, the Unconscious, and Other Post-Modern Misrepresentations I linked to Part I of a series at Reconquista which looked at the accelerating pace of Islamic aggression. In Is Islam Waging War on the World? Part 2, Sir Henry Morgan examined the recent history of the Islamic insurgency in Thailand. If you only get your information from the MSM, you may not know there is a burgeoning Islamic insurgency in Thailand, but from the graphic representation of the terrorist activity in Thailand, Sir Henry Morgan is moved to raise a question that resonates:
It looks an awful lot to me as if resources, including planning resources (and that’s where the controlling mind comes into the picture), were withdrawn from the rest of the world and diverted to Thailand to get the insurgency there started, then once that insurgency became self-sustaining, those resources were directed back to where they came from. As I said in my last post – the opening of another front.
This is a wider tactical move that may be repeated in the future. I suggest we – in reality me, I suppose – ought to keep a weather eye out for for another sustained slowing or even reduction in attacks outside Iraq. If this happens we ought to consider where yet another front might be about to be opened. Put bluntly: where is there a lot of Muslims where there is little or no trouble? Which region of what country? Anyone got any suggestions?
Implicit in this is the suggestion that the violence is being directed by a strategically informed vision.
Many people have noticed that most of the hot spots in the world today are occurring where the Islamic world meets the non-Islamic world. The Baron at Gates of Vienna has produced the Bloody Borders Project which shows this in unmistakable terms.
A New York Times article today raises an interesting question about the Bloody Borders.
Iraq has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. The Times reports today on the difficulties they have been facing since the toppling of Saddam Hussein:
Iraq’s Christians Flee as Extremist Threat Worsens
Muslim fury over Pope Benedict XVI’s public reflections on Islam in Germany a month ago — when he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as calling Islam “evil and inhuman” — has subsided elsewhere, but repercussions continue to reverberate in Iraq, bringing a new level of threat to an already shrinking Christian population.
The reporters make the assertion that the violence directed against Iraqi Christians is a reaction to the Pope's recent comments, yet this is a weak argument. After all, the Pope does not represent non-Catholics, yet the violence has not been restricted to Catholics. Further, in the same paragraph, the reporters make the point that the violence against Christians is subsiding elsewhere, so the obvious question might be: What sustains the anti-Christian violence in Iraq?
The article goes on to report that Christians were doing quite well until the Americans invaded and that much of the animosity from religious Muslim Iraqis has to do with identifying the Iraqi Christians with the American Christian invaders:
Dora, a neighborhood in southern Baghdad that was once heavily populated by Christians and has been plagued by sectarian violence, has now been mostly emptied of them. Christians were singled out there by insurgents who accused them of being friendly with the occupying Americans.
“They are Christian, we are Christian,” said one holdout, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Suzan. “They think most likely we know each other well.”
Aside from the fact that Iraq is seen by our enemies as merely one front, though at the moment the most important front, in the war against the non-Muslim world, the article seems to describe the ongoing violence with a curious lack of curiosity. The question of why the violence supposedly caused by the Pope's comments has subsided elsewhere is simply ignored; it doesn't fit with whatever story the reporters are trying to tell.
In point of fact, events in Thailand and in Indonesia suggest there has been minimal respite in attacks on Christians. Rusty has a report on the moderate Muslim nation of Indonesia which should be read in full, because he substantiates his position:
Civil war is in the air in Indonesia. Christians are daily being slaughtered and the government does little to protect them.
Two of our longtime blog-friends, Stan the Infidel and Big White Infidel, are furious over the treatment of Christians in Indonesia. What the media paints as 'sectarian violence' is really Muslim persecution of Christian minorities.
The Fifth column at home works overtime to make sure that our MSM keep the unfortunate facts as obscure as possible. It is important that all the attacks be minimized and keep isolated from each other in order to maintain the position that there is no Global War on Islamic Terror. Dinocrat reports on how this works:
The sound of one hand clapping
Mr. Hamid Rizvi of Toronto made some spooky comments regarding French philosophy professor Robert Redeker in a letter to the National Post:
Muslim “reactions” and “retaliations” against supposed “free speech” are not coming out of thin air. In fact, authors such as Prof. Redeker are adding fuel to the fire and expecting it to extinguish itself. There is a simple solution to these “violent” retaliations. Let’s keep practising free speech, but eliminate the ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs. The retaliations will stop. It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.
Within the West, we are increasingly seeing the use of violence and threats of violence to silence those who do not express the proper sentiments. "Hate speech" laws and regulations allow the offended to use our own freedoms and rights against us. There is no free speech if violent people have the veto over it and if we can not even debate the question of the relationship of Islam to violence, we (and the Muslim world) will eventually be left, once the forced choice is made, with the Clash of Civilizations that some want, many fear, and most recoil from in reflexive avoidance.
However, bear with me while I address a question that seems inherent in these disparate reports. Is the enemy a Hydra, or is it more accurate to think of it as an Aiptasia?
The Hydra, fought by Heracles in Greek mythology, was a monster that grew two new heads for every one that was cut off. It is certainly tempting to think of the insurgency in Iraq as having features in common with the Hydra. A Hydra led insurgency would have a limited number of agents with operative control. It could be killed if the trunk of the beast is killed. As long as there remains a source for its power, it will tend to spread and grow new heads.
On the other hand, the Aiptasia shares some similarities with the Hydra but with some unique additions. Aiptasia is a pest anemone in Marine Aquariums. It can regrow its tentacles if they are cut off and grows new tentacles as it gets larger. When it gets large enough it resembles a Hydra. In addition, it is also quite prolific and spreads throughout the aquarium unless it is swiftly dealt with and eradicated. As opposed to the Hydra, with a limited number of controlling intelligences, it is more of a networked pest. Each Aiptasia is easy to kill if addressed early, but once it has become established it is almost impossible to eradicate fully (though there are a few Marine fish and invertebrates that will feast on it and keep it under control.)
Of course, these analogies break down as all analogies must when in contact with reality. The Aiptasia of violent Islamic fascism not only infects an area, but recruits from the inhabitants in order to spread its purview.
In either case, it remains clear that we are not getting at the trunk which supports the tentacles and until we do, the Long War will continue to stretch out into the indefinite future.
Recent Comments